Ben Roberts-Smith has been

found guilty in the court of public opinion and in a civil court - not in a criminal court. He has yet to be found guilty of the offences the civil court found were not defamatory.

There is a vast difference here between the claims made and someone actually being guilty of the offence or offences claimed. Yes, people appeared in court and made claims but those claims were not proven to the standard required.

I know this is going to confuse a lot of people. My own memories of "criminal law" - a subject I did not enjoy - are not as good as they should be. I do remember something very clearly. The standard of proof for conviction in a civil court is "on the balance of probabilities" and the standard of conviction in a criminal court is "beyond reasonable doubt".  

There is a vast difference between those two standards. That is as it should be. At one time a conviction for murder could result in the death penalty. The standard needed to be "beyond reasonable doubt" and, as we all know, the courts do not always get it right. 

Even the standard applied in the civil court - where, in this case, accusations have been made - can fail. "On the balance of probabilities" depends in the Roberts-Smith case on recollections in the theatre of war and on personal relationships, indeed animosities. 

The judge in this case could only go on the "evidence" presented to him. He has to presume those giving evidence are telling the truth. He has to apply the law to the information before him. 

Defamation proceedings are always difficult. They almost always arise out of a desire to see someone fall from grace. In this case there was also a desire by the media to sell a story which would get senior "investigative" journalists awards and bring in a great deal of advertising revenue. 

Journalists are not actually interested in the truth or otherwise of a story. They are interested in how to tell a story so that it sells. In my line of work I see this over and over again. I get one story from aid workers in the middle of it all - and they can also vary greatly - and see another on a television news service. The news service is there to tell a story. The aid workers are telling me about what is actually happening. Believe me please; they are two different things.

I don't know Roberts-Smith. I am never likely to even meet him but until he has been tried and convicted in a criminal court I am not prepared to say, "He appears to be guilty of the offences charged." He isn't. Senior journalists of long standing know this too. Their reputations have also been damaged.